Peer Review of a Scientific Journal Article

^{Biological Communications (Biol
3920)}

^{Critique or}^{Review of a Scientific
Journal Article}

^{Follow the guidelines below in your review of a Scientific Journal Article (Helpful Guide); address each question (if you wish full credit for the review).}

NOTE:

In your critique under No. 2 below be sure to address Separately each item: "a" through "o".

In your critique under No. 3 below be sure to address Separately each item: "a" through "l".

^{Include a paper copy of
the Critique plus a
Copy of the Journal Article in your Organizer or
Portfolio.}

^L^{ink to your}^HomePage^.

^{FINAL
copy to
be submitted to the instructor on the Wednesday of Mid-term following Semester
Break.}

^{1.  Select an article from a scientific journal located in the stacks of the library that is pertinent to your}

^{literature review for the research project in Biol 3920... or a "Complete" article down-loaded from a literature search engine on the Web.}

^{2.  Read the article thoroughly, giving particular attention to items "a" through "o" in the outline below; address (respond) to each individually:}

^{a.  continuity and consistency of "chain of events," i.e. sticking to order of events;}

^{b.  how well does the Title describe what the paper is really all about;}

^{c.  in the Introduction, does the}^L^{iterature Cited} effectively lead the reader to the Objective [Hypothesis] statement;

^{d.  how many citations are given in the Introduction and do they "support" the Objective statement (list the number);}

^{e.  is the Objective statement thorough and specific;}

^{f.   is the Methods & Materials section logically arranged, complete, and supported by literature references;}

^{g.  could you repeat the experiment/study in its entirely by following the procedures given in the Methods & Materials;}

^{h.  are the Results arranged/organized to follow the same order of events as the Methods & Materials section;}

^{i.   are the Results presented in a thorough and simple way... easy to follow/understand;}

^{j.   are the graphics (Tables and Figures) prepared well, easy to understand and necessary;}

^{k.  does the Discussion section really "discuss" the}^R^esults;

^{l.   does the Literature Cited in the Discussion include those used to "build" the arguments in the Introduction;}

^{m. do the references cited in the Discussion "support (agree)" or "not support (disagree)" with the Results;}

^{n.  was the Objective met (do the research results support the objective); and}

^{o.  were the Literature Cited in the final section of the paper taken from "good" sources, i.e. peer reviewed}

^{journals, and were they recent (dated within one year of publishing the paper)?}

^{3.  Once you have "digested" the scientific article and answered each item listed above, prepare a written}

^{review following the outline below:}

^{a.  Critique/Review (main heading of the review)}

^{b.  Reviewed by (give your name):}

^{c.  Your Major, Department, University, City, State:}

^{d.  Title (of the scientific article):}

^{e.  Author(s):}

^{f.  Journal: (include name of journal, volume, pages)}

^{g.  Overview, or Brief Description, that includes the Objective statement, how the study set out to meet}

^{the Objective, and what the work actually accomplished (did it meet the Objectives).}

^{h.  Critique: Critically evaluate the entire study from the prospective given in item two (2): a through n above.}

^{For example, did the study have Scientific Merit (did it actually contribute anything to knowledge and}

^{understanding of science, can it be duplicated [could you re-run the study to acquire similar results])}

^{how many citations from Journal Articles were there in the Introduction... and how many of there}

^{same articles did the author(s) use to "support (agree)" or "not-support
(disagree)" with the
results?}

^{i.   Completeness:  Was the paper well written or was it difficult to follow; was(were) the Objective(s) met?}

^{j.   Problems: List the problems that you have identified with the paper.}

^{k.  Benefits: List the benefits or important contributions made by the study.}

^{l.   Additional Research: What additional areas of research did the study identify (were more}

^{questions generated than answered by the research).}

^{4.  Be ready to Present your review before your colleagues in class.}

^{5.  Save the file in your Biol 3920 folder under "My Documents" and place a copy in your Portfolio / Post on webpage.}

Tech Home

Biology Dept

Morgan's Home

Monday, April 07, 2008 05:45:05 PM